People v. Williams CA1/3

Filed 1/29/25 P. v. Williams CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A172259 TED BRANDON WILLIAMS, (San Bernardino County Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. FWV23001194)

MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury convicted Ted Brandon Williams of second degree robbery, finding true an allegation that he personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon — a knife — in the commission of the crime.1 On appeal, he argues insufficient evidence supported the robbery conviction and deadly weapon enhancement. We disagree and affirm. On a 2023 night, Williams walked into a liquor store, took a bottle of whiskey from a refrigerated unit, put it in the “front kangaroo pouch” of his sweatshirt, and walked out. A video of the incident depicted a knife in his hand. Two employees — Jose M. and Marcos S. — pursued and confronted

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion, including only

necessary facts. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1; People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851.) The California Supreme Court transferred this matter from the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District to the First Appellate District on January 15, 2025. 1

him just outside the store. He took a “fighting stance” when Jose yelled at him to return the bottle. He replied, “ ‘or what?’ ‘What’s going to happen if I don’t?’ ” Jose was not afraid, but Marcos noticed Williams had “his fingers wrapped around what would be the handle portion of [a] knife and about one and a half inches of what would be the tip portion of the knife protruding from his hand and resting on his right thumb.” Fearing Williams would stab Jose, Marcos pulled Jose inside the store. Williams remained in a fighting stance until the employees retreated inside, and then he “took off.” Marcos told Jose about the knife. Police detained Williams less than one mile from the store, finding him in possession of a cold bottle of whiskey and a knife. Jose and Marcos identified him in the field as the person who stole the bottle. A jury convicted Williams of second degree robbery and found true the allegation that he used a deadly and dangerous weapon in the commission of the robbery. (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 12022, subd. (b)(1); undesignated statutory references are to this code.) The trial court also found true that he had four prior strike convictions, and it sentenced him to 25 years to life in prison. It dismissed the deadly weapon enhancement but denied his motion to dismiss the prior strikes. Williams argues there was insufficient evidence he used force or fear to take the property or to prevent resistance, thus his conviction for robbery should be reversed. He also contends there was insufficient evidence he displayed the knife in a menacing manner, requiring reversal of the deadly weapon enhancement. Neither argument persuades us. “In evaluating a claim regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, we review the record ‘in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact